Shoma Chaudhury and tales of selective Feminism

Hi!

Team CRI have just launched Swarajya! Check it out!

There is one big take away for me from the 5 years that I have engaged with studying Patriarchy and Feminism as a student of Sociology and Development Studies. The take away being there is no unilinear understanding of feminism and that feminisms are multiple. Having said that, gender-studies was never my favorite subject and that was simply because I could not make up my mind about what perspective should I hold on to. I could never make up my mind how to place my own opposition clearly while respecting the decisions of others. I could never figure out what qualifies as freedom, choice and does it really end where my nose begins. I could never understand how one should make the personal political while also trying to check broad generalizations.

But, there are a few things I understood. The first, being that the feminist theory is a critical theory and I am not critical enough to understand it in its entirety. Maybe if I chose to read more and engage with it in a deeper way, I would find plausible answers to all my questions.

Secondly, I understood that I can keep myself ready to learn from all while I negotiate my space through the misogyny and the sexism all around us. My feminism shall be my own. It will be open to views, opinions, and values from all while having some non-negotiable stands. But, the third most critical thing which I understood from my classes was that I shall not call myself a feminist and sermonize to the world till the point I deem myself ready to be one.

And that day shall come only when I challenge and counter the internalized misogyny and sexism in me. Yes, I am still guilty at smirking at some dumb sexist joke. Yes, sometimes spontaneously, I wonder why a girl is wearing such a short skirt and walking through a crowded street and have to forcefully remind myself to respect her choice. Yes, I still at times evaluate myself through my partners gaze and feel happy about it. I am still comfortable with many aspects of patriarchy and can relate to many views with other prominent feminists might call regressive.

It is perhaps my own lacuna, my socialization and also a part of me which I find difficult to shed. Till that time, I am not a feminist and find it beyond my moral authority to sermonize to the world. Yes, I do express my opinion, my dissent, my anger but as another citizen, not as a feminist. Because for me, feminists have a huge responsibility which they have gained by virtue of debunking all internalized patriarchy. Their views cannot be ambiguous, their outrage cannot be selective, and their conscience cannot point towards self preservation.

I see every feminist as a beacon of light, a self made leader who guides us each day towards confronting the ‘demon within’, towards making the world an equitable space one small deed at a time. That is why I chose to wait to confront my own internalized misogyny and sexism before I venture out to theorize feminism for the whole world. I wait to call myself a feminist because I am not ready for the huge role. And in my belief, Shoma Chaudhury should have waited too.

In the light of the recent Tehelka sexual assault story, a lot has to be said about Shoma Chaudhury. Things have to be stated because of her position as the head of an organization recruiting women and being vocal about issues of sexual abuse and assault. And things also have to be stated because of her position as an ’eminent feminist’ and a woman. Irony lived to smirk and narrate a tale, when the Think Fest in Goa (sarcastic comments about which, I will reserve for later) featuring brave sexual assault survivors coming out and narrating their stories, doubled up as a site for a heinous crime against another woman.

While Shoma spoke of the ‘beast in our midst’ while talking of sexual assault, the implication could have been quite literal for the young lady in question. While I do not hold Shoma responsible for any of the deeds committed by Tarun Tejpal, it is her reactions which have made her come across as a convenient feminist, who saves outrage for others and self preservation for oneself.

I have a lot of questions for Shoma, the feminist. A lot of them!! I wonder what prompted Shoma to say that the assault on the woman was an internal matter. Does domestic violence amount to internal issues? Is marital rape an internal issue? Is a rape in a school compound, an empty office, in a closed mall an internal issue? Is a father raping a young daughter or sexually assaulting his wife, an internal issue? Has not Shoma, for a large part of her life, with her journalistic ethos and with the pen that dares to speak the truth tried to shed light on how assault is not a single woman’s problem? Has she not spoken on how the personal, needs to be made into the political? Has she not outraged about how the world should know about crimes on women? Then what was the justification, Shoma for the indignant comment of ‘the assault being the woman’s problem and not the society’s problem’ coming from an eminent feminist like you? Where is your sanctimonious wisdom, sensitivity and outrage as a feminist now?

Since, when does the perpetrator have the responsibility of deciding on his own punishment? And since, when do feminists have the responsibility to support that while also saying that the survivor of the assault is satisfied? Would you have been satisfied with the quantum of punishment Tejpal had decided for himself, if this crime was way out of the doors of Tehelka? Would you not have expressed your outrage as a journalist, as a feminist, if a politician (of a certain political bent), a government servant, a guy from a slum, a young student had committed this act of depravity? Would you have allowed the woman to be satisfied, with her assaulter going on a ‘6 month holiday’, if she was not your employee? If this does not betray your feminist ethos, then I do not know what does?

Shoma, when the mail sent by the girl clearly states that she wanted a committee formed to look into her grievance, how could you state that she was satisfied with just Tejpal’s departure from Tehelka? And as a responsible feminist and as the managing editor of Tehelka how were you not stringent about a sexual harassment committee at your office according to the Vishakha guidelines? You talk about systemic changes in your multiple lectures as a feminist. You talk about constitutionally available spaces, about the law being biased against women. Your magazine has broken amazing stories about female safety amidst rising sexism. Then why the apathy, in your own front yard?

You speak of sexual assault as a crime of power and fail to believe that unequal power relations can exist in your office too. You speak of sexual harassment and assault as not just a problem of the lower classes, but have automatically sanitized your workplace out of it? And you say you are an eminent feminist?

If there was a different version which Tarun Tejpal presented, why was it not made aware to the public on the very first day? An easier and a way more honorable way out of the situation would have been to state that there are two versions to the events of those nights and the enquiry committee will take care of it. The second day sees these manipulations where easy words like ‘consent’, ‘different version’ are used with an oh-so-righteous anger while knowing that this can change the course of the proceedings completely. This is clearly not expected of an ’eminent feminist’.

And if at all there are two versions to the story, why till yesterday was the reluctance to go to the police? Hell, you did not even seem to be aware that penetration amounts to rape. Why the reluctance to call your boss an alleged rapist? You surely do not grant others such benefit of doubt? Why the spin tales, Shoma? Why the passive aggressive anger? What is being covered up?

Yes, Shoma, I agree with you that graphic details of the survivor’s story should not have made it into the public domain without her consent. But, most of your anger only seemed to be channelized towards the leak. From where I see it, had it not been for those leaks, no one could have known the extent of the crime. And that is because you were just not ready to share the details. It would have been interpreted as merely another unfriendly touch where the girl was equally responsible.

Many a times on Twitter, I have seen Shoma Choudhary speak out against people/celebrities flippantly using the word ‘rape’ as a verb. I have agreed with her and like many others have voiced my opinion against it. The opposition is needed to reverse a dominant ‘rape culture’. But, all our opposition should not end with just talk and big words and quotes from bell hooks or Judith Butler. Noticing everyday sexism and challenging it is as crucial as standing up for a friend, a colleague, a stranger who is an assault survivor. Thinking is a big part of doing. So is speaking out. But, at some point we have to transcend theorizing and let our actions speak out for what we believe in.

Feminism is to be inculcated in each one of us and that is a herculean task. It is a lifelong commitment to remain eternally vigilant and unbiased. Our criticality should begin with ourself and our opposition to misogyny should just not be reserved for others. If one can firmly decide to go against the world, against one’s own people, against one’s own sense of security to defend what one believes in, then call yourself a feminist. Or else, wait till you make yourself one and do not stop trying. I am still waiting and trying.

Pratyasha Rath

Pratyasha is a researcher working on tribal issues and social inclusion policies in Odisha and Chhattisgarh. She is employed with National Centre for Advocacy Studies, Pune. Views expressed here are completely personal.

When adherence to some ideology becomes a status symbol, thinks like this happens.

kpp1991

Excellent narrative. Yes, Shoma Chaudhury is a convenient feminist. She comes out with guns blazing when the causes are sitting on the other side of the fence. When it becomes in-house Shoma Chaudhury gets dignified with brazening out the whole attempt to Rape as a mere *internal problem which has been addressed to the satisfaction of all parties concerned*! How far adamant and obnoxious can Shoma Chaudhury get – she keeps forgetting that she too is a lady and could be a victim of such internal problems too!

r0shi

Feminism is synonymous for hypocrisy, and is complete BS

RVenkatanarayanan

Pratyaksha is verbose and pedantic. Without either, vulnerability of woman in certain circumstances and predatoriness of man in certain circumstances can be lucidly stated and steps to counter debated. In the present case resentment and animosity that have been brewing for some time now against sanctimony as ideology adopted by Tehelka and its beacons–Tejpal and Shoma–appear to be getting vented. If feminism can be an ideology or a cause how about masculinism, some time soon?
R.Venkatanarayanan

Subramanian

without a strong moral character,any blanket jargon is mere jargon

Pratyasha

Ha. Guilty as charged about verbosity and being pedantic. That is just my style of writing but will keep your feedback in mind and try to work on that. Feminism as an ideology though is not limited to the causes of women. It is about challenging dominant patriarchal structures that create marginalization and justify it through equally oppressive institutions. It is so happens that women bear the brunt of multiple marginalizations and remain relatively powerless than their (also oppressed) male counterparts. Hence, it becomes very critical to give them a voice. Feminism is not just for women. It never was and if there are people who tell you that, they say wrong. Feminism is also not about hating men and blaming men for all wrongs. Feminism is a movement for equality. It is not about claiming the superiority of women over men. Hence, masculinism as a counter-ideology can just prove to be an ego massage, not much more.
But, in my opinion why succumb to labels. Lets just be human and demand equality and equity. That should suffice.

Joseph Anton

A rather well written and balanced article.

Shoma’s revelation – and fall- in this sorry episode has been spectacular. On some counts, esp. on the sanctimony index, even more so than Tejpal’s own.

That someone who apparently lived feminism, the opaqueness to its obvious and simple principles when presented with conflict of interest, was that of a textbook hypocrite.

RVenkatanarayanan

Pratyaksha,
I am glad to see your clarification. I can not agree more with you on your last para–labels are meaningless jargon; equality and equity must prevail. I will add, “consideration, compassion, moral conscience”. These factors must characterize not only man-woman relations and interactions but all human relations.
I do not understand,however, your point “feminism” is not limited to the causes of women, is not just for women, but about challenging “patriarchy”. The very concept of patriarchy arises out of consideration of women’s concerns. Often such concerns are legitimate and must be addressed effectively; but I think some times such concerns are over-stated. An example is your staement that women bear the brunt of “multiple marginalization”. What is this jargon, “multiple marginalization”? Lastly, I think that in our country, championing women’s causes and concerns ( which is required of not only females but males too) some times descends to ludicrous level. Of course this comment does not apply to the recent notorious cases including “Tehelka”.

truthfinder

I strongly object the perception that women bear the burnt of oppressive patriarchal structure. It is the male who actually suffer more from a patriarchal system. With all sympathetic jive for feminism we forget the very simple principle of Chauvinism: males must fight and eliminate each other. In typical Chauvinist community male female ratio amounts to 2:7. Every Chauvinistic system has plethora of brutal procedures to eliminate male candidates. Be it war, sacrificial system, castration, slavery, self immolation etc. Through out the history of human kind 90% of male child born could not reach even adolescence because of these well established mechanism. Violence against women used to trigger a large number of elimination of male population. A rape would definitely trigger devastating family conflict which would leave many male family members died.

Ek Chakkar

“Feminism is not just for women. It never was and if there are people who
tell you that, they say wrong. Feminism is also not about hating men
and blaming men for all wrongs. Feminism is a movement for equality.”

Better to call a movement meant for equality ‘egalitarianism’ rather than ‘feminism’. Otherwise, stop with the intellectual dishonesty. Feminism is proving to be an ideology for raising female privilege at the expense of men.

If you were critically wounded, would you prefer your stretcher to be carried by a woman who can physically carry a smaller load than men? That’s the choice in reality. The fact is that, for most dangerous jobs, men pay a heavy price in terms of bad health, poor working conditions, abusive work relationships and fatalities.

The politics of feminism clearly demonstrate that it divides people by gender, leads to less cohesive families and creates less happy women. It is an ‘othering’ ideology. Feminism served a useful purpose once and accomplished much; time has come for it to now retire gracefully.

Pratyasha

Im glad you shared your views. If you have gone through my comments, you must have figured out I am not much for labels. But, I am all for academic rigor. And yes, if you engage with the feminist discourse, you will realize that men are also affected by patriarchy and women are also agents and perpetrators of patriarchy. So, i will again repeat with all conviction at hand, that feminism is not just for women and certainly is not a man hating discourse. Ofcourse, within the feminist movement, you might come across many radical elements who do hate men and blame men for all the wrongs in the society, As, i said in the article, there are multiple feminisms, liberal, radical, 3rd wave, socialist, black, dalit.. these are variants and emerge from different life experiences. Do not subsume all of them and use a generalized whole to call the theory redundant. Yes, there is a concept of ‘othering’ in feminism because it is important to use that to see the underlying power differences. And the idea of the other is not created by feminism, it has been noticed, brought to the fore and debated. And is demanding equal wages, equal work opportunities, sexual freedom, freedom from moral judgements, freedom to be as good and as bad as a man, a privilege? And why is it at the expense of a man? Has it been ordained that the balance of power should always be tilted in favor of men? If a woman gets the same rights as a man, why do you feel that men have been wronged? ‘Raising female privilege’ is letting a woman say no to rape, of asserting that a no means a no. Your ideas of privilege then my friend, needs to be rethought.

Ek Chakkar

“But, I am all for academic rigor.”
==> That’s great. We agree on reason and logic prevailing.

“So, i will again repeat with all conviction at hand, that feminism is not just for women…”
==> Please, then, stop calling it ‘feminism’. Since academic rigour is important here, let’s be precise. ‘Social justice’ or ‘egalitarianism’ are more accurate to represent the fight for equality.

“And the idea of the other is not created by feminism, it has been noticed, brought to the fore and debated.”
==> By your definition of feminism, I assume that ‘other’ equals ‘disadvantaged’. If that’s the case, then I agree.

“And is demanding equal wages, equal work opportunities, sexual freedom, freedom from moral judgements, freedom to be as good and as bad as a
man, a privilege?”
==> No. Kindly stop projecting your interpretation of ‘privilege’ — because it supports your narrative — on to my comments.

“Has it been ordained that the balance of power should always be tilted in favor of men?”
==> No. We all agree that equality is a just principle. By focussing primarily on the issues faced by women, feminism relegates the disadvantages of men to a lower rung. Likely, this is unintentional and a by-product of priorities. Social justice must be gender-blind.

“And why is it at the expense of a man?”
==> If you mean that demanding equality is at the expense of those who are unfairly powerful, then it is not necessarily at the expense of a man. I take feminism to be an agent for elevating female privilege *above* that of men, so that is why “it” is at the expense of a man.

“If a woman gets the same rights as a man, why do you feel that men have been wronged?”
==> Prove to me that I stated or implied, in my comment, that I felt men have been wronged because women got the same rights. Prove it and you have an unequivocal apology from me. Otherwise, boo-boo by you.

“‘Raising female privilege’ is letting a woman say no to rape, of asserting that a no means a no.”
==> Actually, if you stress that saying “No!” to rape applies to all people, then it’s a more inclusive position. By framing rape primarily in the context of women, you are necessarily excluding men and children (especially boys). And right here, your statement proved that feminism is more about women than all people. Your comments tried to clarify that feminism is more about equality than just women’s rights et al; but nowhere did they appear to assign gravity to issues that affect men and boys.

Rape, for example, is a serious issue for men. I would love to see India take to the streets to demand tough action for men raped, even in jails. Please point me to one — just one — prominent feminist in India who has consistently written about men’s rape issues. If s/he has written consistently, has it resulted in widespread debate and consequent legislation? (I think not.)

Face it, today’s feminism is redundant and, I posit, at risk of becoming irrelevant. As mentioned in my first comment, it served a good purpose and accomplished much; for that accomplishment, all are grateful.

“Your ideas of privilege then my friend, needs to be rethought.”
==> Just for academic rigour, please correct the grammatical mistakes in the sentence. 😉

Pratyasha

At the outset, i will concede to the one major mistake I made in the previous post. Rape is not an issue of women. Its is a gender neutral issue and yes, men and transgenders are affected by it too. May not be in equal measure, but certainly yes. Any feminist worth his/her salt would definitely not have made this elementary mistake. But, pardon my transgression. I am still learning. While conceding this and also saying that the feminist movement in India has not given sufficient attention to Rape in a gender neutral sense, it is not that these discussions have been completely absent. Gender neutral Rape and Sodomy were widely discussed while coming up with recommendations for the Justice Verma Committe.The repealing of Section 377 of IPC came after a protracted struggle by Indian feminists. That certainly was not aimed at a change benefitting just women. There may be gaps in articulation but feminism is a space for both men and women. To speak for people who bear the brunt of patriarchy and to speak against those who perpetuate it.

Now for the nomenclature. When i was a student, my obsession with the right terminology was probably as rigid as yours. Then, i realized I do not need a label to voice out my concerns or add gravitas to my voice. But, since it matters to you, here is my simple analogy. Why have specialized names like Oncologists, Dermatologists, ENT specialists, Opthalmologists when you can just refer to everyone as ‘Doctors’. The work that they do as well as the goal of their endeavors is very well summed up by just calling them Doctors. But, the fact is that Doctors is a broad term and does not do justice to the specialized knowledge which they have. Similarly, egalitarianism is a broad term, too broad to be able to facilitate coalitions on narrower issues. Feminism on the other hand is a more specialized, nuanced theory which aims at understanding how patriarchy affects men and women, tilting the balance of power and creating oppressive gender role based structures. Apart from patriarchy there are various other factors which disturb the balance of power in society. Feminism does not deal with these factors in entireity. Hence, though its mandate remains equality, it is a subset of the egalitarian movement (If any. Havent heard of it till now). A specialized theory facilitates deeper understanding into skewed power relations in a patriarchal setup and helps in the academic knowledge transform into movements. If you choose to call yourself egalitarian and still talk in the feminist language, then go ahead. I do not call myself feminist and probably never will. but, that does not stop me from accepting it as a theory. Call their bluff, their hypocrisy if you want to. But, let it not be as inconsequential as nomenclature and silos.

Finally, I am yet to understand which privileges demanded by women are at the expense of men. If you could highlight some, then maybe this discussion could go on. Otherwise I will continue drawing from the dominant narrative, (not my own, as pointed out by you) much to your displeasure.

And yes, about the grammar, I have abandoned puritanism long back. For more on that, read Stephen Fry 🙂

Sarab

I rarely engage with feminist argument for the simple reason that it looks to me no different from communism in its pretenses – (1) viability of solution wanting, take recourse to justification for the movement as an alibi (2) only fake western feminism is feminism, no strong native cultural feminine prototype can be acceptable to mention just two. For instance, does it occur to a feminist that for all their stereotyping the miss one of the most fundamental aspects of the Mahabharata: the woman-centric life of Pandavas, whether it is Kunti or Draupadi? Does it occur to a feminist that the matrilinear groups in Kerala is a partial reason for it being vulnerable to abrahamic genocide and subversion? As a matter of fact people who worked against the problems of women are not majority feminists. The worst part of feminism though, is that it destroys feminine nature by its aspired equality with man.

Counter?

Ek Chakkar

“Any feminist worth his/her salt would definitely not have made this elementary mistake. But, pardon my transgression. I am still learning”
==> Sorry, this is an unforgivable transgression. You are writing on an influential website and blog, and you expect readers to forgive you because you forgot to plug in the microphone when you were singing. And, in this context, grammatical mistakes are symptomatic of a ‘chalta hai’ attitude; for academic rigour, that’s unacceptable. I perceive this to be a digression from the essence of the issue, i.e., feminism lacks substance in distinguishing itself from social justice.

“While conceding this and also saying that the feminist movement in India has not given sufficient attention to Rape in a gender neutral sense, it is not that these discussions have been completely absent. Gender
neutral Rape and Sodomy were widely discussed while coming up with recommendations for the Justice Verma Committe.”
==> I asked for you to name just one feminist who has consistently written about men’s rape issues. In response, you give the generics of a **reactionary** episode in gender politics; that, too, reactionary to a woman’s rape. Where are the feminists, in their hundreds of thousands, demanding men — the ones that are victims of patriarchy — not to be raped. **Exactly** where? Your response to my request for naming one feminist is what I would call intellectual dishonesty.

For the paragraph starting with, “Now for the nomenclature.”
==> Using the analogy of a material-science discipline like medicine assumes that social sciences can be similarly organised. When social sciences can pin down human emotions to a material level, then social justice may start a path to become a material science. Therefore, recognising feminism as a subset of social justice because it better addresses the negative effects of patriarchy in its cocoon is giving undue credit to an ideology that has demonstrated, through its practice, a preference for resolving women’s issues.

“Finally, I am yet to understand which privileges demanded by women are at the expense of men. If you could highlight some, then maybe this discussion could go on.”

==> The primary privilege is demanding half the share of economic value without taking on half the responsibility of earning that same value. For example, when women have equal access to professions, why is a larger portion likely to choose lower-paying jobs where the risk to physical injury is lower? Take that in the context of men (rightly) giving up any say in the question of abortion and you should have a concrete understanding of how at least some female privilege is at the expense of men.

If you choose to value domestic work of women in the home and assume that men don’t help out at home, that value is offset by the higher risk to life that men undertake at work. Where both are working and the man doesn’t help out with domestic work, that is unfair to women.

“And yes, about the grammar, I have abandoned puritanism long back.”
==> Good for you. You must know that it may be at odds with academic rigour. For more on that, read your mind. 😉

Pratyasha

Sorry I had missed this. I am unable to understand the first point that you have put across. Could you just elaborate on it a little more. On the second point you have my full agreement. There has been no attempt by feminists in India to draw from the rich cultural heritage. Infact more often than not, western labels have been used to ridicule and malign native narratives. The Indian feminist movement (which i believe has never really evolved) has a lot to learn from the Black feminist struggle which highlighted that the narrative has been hijacked by white privilege. The contention therefore, should be with the articulation of the movement and not with the feminist theory. I also have huge problems with the feminist movement in India and believe its time to place contrarian views in the public domain.
At the same time, I completely disagree that with your last part about destroying ‘feminine’ nature. Who decides what is feminine and masculine and why judge individuals on how strictly they adhere to their assigned gender roles. And is aspiring equality as a human being, a non-feminine quality? Why would you think that? Is submissiveness, subversion a feminine trait then? What exactly is feminine nature for you? And why is it so important that women need to adhere to it? Let an individual decide how s/he wants to play out her/his gender roles. Lets not sit in judgment of that.

Sarab

Communism showed a problem in the society and rose – it created revolutions, disturbed societies, caused violence, replaced state authorities and finally it did not achieve what it claimed to, through all this. Feminism similarly, came into existence by showing certain problems in the “male-dominated” society – most importantly it wrecked the social bonds and family system in the west. But if the results it achieved compared with the destruction, hardly justifiable. But whenever a criticism of these comes, both movements show the problem and say “see, there is so much of injustice and we are justified with our means”.

“Who decides what is feminine and masculine and why judge individuals on how strictly they adhere to their assigned gender roles.”

May be the question should be ‘how is it decided what is feminine’, and not ‘who decides’. Again I would say based on nature. When you talk of male-female they are essentially the complementary duals – qualitatively, biologically, spiritually. Growth and sustenance, synthesis and discrimination, seed and soil, doing and being, enjoying and witnessing, I can go on enlisting the complementary duals that constitute male-female natures. It is also not necessary that a man or a woman has only male or female psychological functions dominating in him or her – as they say there is a woman in every man and vice versa. The point is, there is no need to call such understanding a stereotype. Understanding the nature of things is essential to give any meaningful answer to the problems people face.

This very elementary fact renders the logic of equality absurd. That one player is disadvantaged and discriminated (the female here), does not mean achieving equality would solve the problem. One needs to figure out whether the arrangement one is asking for, disadvantages or advantages your player and whether it creates a fertile ground for manifesting the qualities that are dominant in the player one is supporting. In a society that values masculine nature, achieving equal rights is never going to get you desired results. In a society that is designed to manifest feminine nature equally, is more likely to be fair to women. A society that spends majority of its energies on trade and military – what is the fulfillment of feminine nature (forget woman or man)? A society that spends its energies on creation and synthesis – what is the fulfillment of feminine nature (forget woman or man)? See the difference I am pointing out? A woman is a naturally disadvantaged player in a male-natured society. You can fight for equality there, only at the expense of destruction of feminine nature. This is what I mean.

“Lets not sit in judgment of that”

I am not judging, I am analyzing. You can agree or disagree, that is different.

Pratyasha

I find barbs of intellectual dishonesty extremely hilarious, especially when it is coming from someone who has killed the Strawman in his/her subsequent arguments. But, i shall take on a few more insinuations in the spirit of engagement. I had no inkling that anyone who chooses to write for an influential website or blog needs to possess the superhuman power of being above mistakes. This is a perpetual learning experience and I do not at any point have such high expectations from myself. I will make mistakes and be courageous enough to admit them, learn from them and move on. I am not a feminist and am not acquainted enough with correct feminist language. If you find it beyond yourself to pardon my transgression, I can live with it 🙂 I would still thank you for pointing it out as I am quite sure i will never be repeating this elementary mistake again. Your obsession with my grammar is sadly something I cannot do much about. This high-school bully like excitement which you have about nitpicking on grammar is not something I share. I will pass it across to my teachers that they did not do a good job and will get back to my Wren and Martin for a few days. Shaming me on my English is clearly not working but I will still take your feedback. May be you too can take some time off and brush up on punctuations. 😉

I will move on to more substantive issues. I had read your question about naming one feminist and had answered accordingly. I think my answer thoroughly reflected that, as I had made it clear that engagement with gender neutral rape, is minimal in India. Issues have been raised from time to time and is a part of gender studies curriculum in most colleges. I am extremely critical of ‘prominent feminists’ in India and probably your argument about them not raising issues of Gender neutral Rape is one of the concerns I share with you. Try to move away a little from ‘prominence’ and you will find man ordinary people working with men, young boys and transgenders who are sexual assault survivors.

While I have used a nomenclature based ‘analogy’ to draw distinctions with generic and specialized knowledge, you have interpreted from it, a critique of positivist approaches to social sciences. It is a strawman fallacy and I will leave it to what you ‘assume’. The feminist movement world-over has been fighting for marriage equality, decriminalization of homosexuality and you still choose to say it gives preference to women!! Selective viewing of praxis is not something a debate can resolve. So let us agree to disagree here and move on.

To quote you, from a previous post,”Kindly stop projecting your interpretation of ‘privilege’ — because it supports your narrative — on to my comments.” You have selected a widely contested, debated idea within feminist circles to support your disagreement with feminism. If you read a little more, monetizing house work, judging men who do not help out at home is not something all schools of feminism are in agreement with. How do you know women are ‘likely to choose’ positions with less risk? Are you drawing it from your own experiences or is there empirical evidence supporting you? Is this just physical/health risk? Then women are employed in armies, in brick kilns,in mining, in the police. Is it an emotional risk or a risk of losing social status/honor/standing? Women lead companies, institutions, countries, raise children. I think both men and women handle enough risk in this world and both are equally capable of handling the same amount of risk in the future. I have an argument for your man-woman work offset. But, since, I am not in agreement with your ideas of risk, I choose not to answer that.

And yes, I did read my mind and it tells me I am not a feminist and certainly not a feminist apologist. I have made it adequately clear in my article that there are multiple feminisms and a number of articulations. I like the space feminism provides and am critical about a lot of things which are said in that space. You say the space has outlived its relevance and should be merged within a wider movement. I believe within the wider movement also, these problematic statements will continue and you will have to engage with them again. Its better to focus on the arguments rather than the nomenclature of the space in which you argue. Feminism is a theory, a movement for equality and will continue to be so. If people within the movement are tweaking their stands, stand up to them and say that they are not being true to feminist ideas rather than generalizing their acts and saying that feminism is outdated. The theory is much more than the sum of the parts in which it is articulated. Since, there is a basic disagreement here, there is no point engaging further. Call yourself anything you want and speak the right things. I am glad you gave me your feedback about grammar, intellectual dishonesty and my general shoddiness 🙂 I will certainly try to improve.

Pratyasha

This is extremely interesting and I am glad you shared it. While I find your analysis quite pertinent, there are a few issues I have with it.

First, I will share what I agree with. I quite like your point where you say that masculine and feminine traits are not exclusively found in men and women respectively. Taking in the concept of Yin and Yang or even Ardhanareshwar, both women and men have masculine and feminine qualities/energies in them. The problem arises when individuals are supposed to adhere to these biologically determined roles. What if a woman does not want want to tap into her feminine side as a nurturer, caregiver and want to join the army. What if a man wants to marry and settle down at home while his wife becomes the sole earning member of the family. It is their personal choice and should be respected by society. But, a ‘masculine woman’ or a ‘feminine man’ is used more as an insult, as an alienating factor. When anything or anyone goes against the accepted norm of what a ‘woman’ or a ‘man’ should be/behave/talk/act like then its becomes problematic for society. These traits have become stereotypes because we do not understand that both men and women could possess these traits. The duality exists in each one of us and not just on the basis of gender. When these traits act as a means to judge who a ‘real man’ or a ‘real woman’ is, then it becomes problematic. I personally find it better if we could leave the terms ‘masculine’,’feminine’ at home and just call these traits, ‘human traits’.

I agree that a large part of the feminist thought has asked women to shun the traditional roles that they have played. It is mostly radical feminism which has proclaimed that women are burdened by their roles of being wives, mothers, caregivers and they should shun it to attain equality. This is problematic and has infact wrecked some homes,.families and children. But, it is nowhere close to merit a comparison with communism!! Feminism has had victims; not as a movement but as an adamantile principle held by some. You see feminism has never managed to sustain a collective movement because within it, there are multiple streams of thought. Unlike communism it is not a draconian, set in stone ideology. The core of feminism is equality and individualism. Individualism means informed choice for each person and that itself does not facilitate a global union. Equality therefore, should be seen more in terms of basic human choices and rights which are free from your assigned gender role.

I hope I have been able to justify my stand.

Sarab

“It is their personal choice and should be respected by society. But, a ‘masculine woman’ or a ‘feminine man’ is used more as an insult, as an alienating factor.”

Yes and no. Is Jhansi Rani’s mardangi an insult or praise? Is the ‘feminine nimbleness’ of a male artist an insult or praise? There is no essential positive or negative to such attribution, it has both sides. The situation, merit of choice, context, utility, achievement, caliber a lot of things determine ‘respect’ or ‘insult’. And the stature of your audience. Besides, the convention of human dignity is no absolute either – while it affects personal choices, it changes itself.

Besides, personal choice is microcosm while social design is macrocosm – the latter dependent on nature and former on individuals. Flipflop between these in a single thread is not going to lead us anywhere. My original point is that feminism can give space to women while appreciating feminine nature will result in creating space for feminine functions in the society and naturally result in better space for women without having to fight at a microcosm. The feminist solution has been rather destructive and it failed to achieve the macro result because it focused on individuals and not on human nature.

“When these traits act as a means to judge who a ‘real man’ or a ‘real woman’ is, then it becomes problematic.”

Yes, and there is no need for such judgment.

” I personally find it better if we could leave the terms ‘masculine’,’feminine’ at home and just call these traits, ‘human traits’.”

By calling them just traits, you are making it a flat space. Ultimately what is your problem definition and how do you wish to relate things on ground to address the basic issue of social space and individual functions? By characterizing their masculine or feminine nature, I am establishing complementarity, hence showing a way to relate them to each other in a setup where they co-exist without competing. I am also saying that such and such principle in social design will create such and such space for such natures and persons with such qualities.

“But, it is nowhere close to merit a comparison with communism!! ”

No of course it is not comparable. The parallel is drawn to explain my statement: “viability of solution wanting, take recourse to justification for the movement as an alibi”. And if it conveyed the import of my point, the example served its purpose.

“The core of feminism is equality and individualism. Individualism means informed choice for each person and that itself does not facilitate a global union. Equality therefore, should be seen more in terms of basic human choices and rights which are free from your assigned gender role. ”

Both of which are dealt at microcosm and hence failed to achieve the objectives. I explained why equality is not going to fly in a complementary space. The feminist movement made woman compete with man in the area of man’s strength – essentially making her play to the rules of her ‘opponent’. It failed miserably in understanding that a social design should have space where woman’s strengths come out in their own right and not need to compete with man where he has some natural strengths. In a way, feminism failed to see the refined aspects of human culture which create that space in any civilized society. And this failure is because of a wrong articulation of the problem – in my understanding.

Individualism on the other hand, is not a woman’s or man’s problem. Nor is it just about the ‘right to assert’ one’s personal choices. The source of individualism is a development of individual entity and one’s ability to grow over the conditioning imposed by surroundings. Besides, personal choice is subject to social space for functions of choice and the visible space in turn affects your choices.

Pratyasha

You have given me a lot to think about and the following response is not going to be my last one. The point where we disagree on is what exactly are ‘natural’ strengths of men and women. While you believe that nature has ordained it, I believe that socialization has created and perpetuated it. I believe that nature has given the same strengths to both men and women but our socialization,. the way we are taught to grow up make us believe that women are better at some things and men are better at some other things. This biological determinism is an issue I cannot identify with. We are born into a sex but our gender is assigned to us. Ways in which we are supposed to behave, react, talk are taught to us to ensure the fact that we stay as feminine and as masculine as the others. What you are on the other hand suggesting is a static structural functionalist theory which sees things the way it has been and argues that they have existed because they serve a purpose. It is like arguing that caste system has continued for so long because it has served a purpose. If the best is brought out in all caste traits, then all castes can co-exist without competing. The feminist theory on the other hand is a critical theory which challenges this very position of functionalism. Just because, things have operated in a certain way, does not mean they are equitable.

When there are values associated to masculine and feminine qualities, it has invariably led to a tilt in the balance of power. When you say that you are for co-existence and not competition, you are automatically reserving some spaces in society for men and some for women. The office for men, the house for women, the sciences for men, the liberal arts for women, cars for boys, barbies for girls. And that is because you perceive their best abilities can be nurtured only in this space. This is alienating and even suppressing individual choice. And to restore the balance of power, competition is inevitable. Since, women were considered politically inactive ‘by nature’, they should have never fought for ‘suffrage’. Since, women were considered nurturers by ‘nature’, they should have never advocated for abortion rights. Since, ‘lajja’ is a ‘mature’ ordained ornament for women, their clothes, their morality should be strictly regulated. In such situations, competition is just to be treated as an equal human being. The competition is not against men but against patriarchy which says that a womans position has been pre-ordained by nature.

The way i see it, you have a problem with the very basis of the theory. You are advocating a structuralist approach where you see larger structures, institutions, society, values, nature and then observe how it percolates down to the level of individuals. Feminist theory on the other hand is a critical approach which stems from individual choice and aims at creating a society shaped by commonly held consensus. Your way is more status quoist, more practical. The feminist way is radical, aims at upturning the way structures are imagined and in many ways is difficult to implement. But, the fact remains that change is never easy to either perceive or implement. I as a woman refuse to be told what is my strength and what is the space where i should function. I will try to read up more on your line of argument. Thank you for sharing it.

Sarab

I am afraid you assumed a lot about my argument, which I neither said not meant. In fact I added a word of caution – no flipflop between micro and macro 🙂 Because their translation involves several steps of simplification/interpretation and there is no 1-1 relation. Being aware of masculine and feminine nature does not by itself result in ‘ordaining’ functions for man and woman. For instance consider the fact – expansion and spreading is essentially feminine nature. How do you relate that to say office for man and home for woman? On the contrary you see that woman has always been at the center of society, literally weaving the ‘web of Indian life’ as Sister Nivedita so aptly puts it. In an agricultural family who goes out and who stays home? So, many of the stereotypes the feminists have us believe are neither inherent in the principle of social design nor in masculine or feminine nature. We cannot say that they are problems created by the society – rather, they are problems faced by the society, which propped in *in spite of* its inherent design and for whatever temporal reasons. While they must be addressed and corrected for all sanity, this business of shooting over their shoulders at the social design is neither rooted in fact nor in reason.

I am not going into the rest of your argument, since that is based on the above. One more clarification: my argument is on causation – and not instructive. There is no ‘should’ or ‘must’ – my spirit is, ‘this is how things work, understand and this will be the result of that principle’.

Also, I do not think there is any structuralism vs radical issue here – feminism just does not have any view or solution on the question of social design, leave structure or no structure. It is not rooted in any foundational problems, it only works with situational problems while raising questions about “system” and “society” and “shackles”. They only say “I should be able to do anything I want”. They have no answer if you ask them what can they do to ensure society has sufficient space to make sure every individual’s potential, aspirations and inclinations align and result in fulfillment. Unless you have a more fundamental definition of the problem, you cannot answer that question. See where I am coming from?

Pratyasha

I absolutely get your last point and I agree to it in toto. This is also one of the reasons why i am not a feminist. Because, there are few solutions. I agree that speaking out is also a large part of doing. But, it is just as Utopian as communism. Upturning patriarchy is something I do not understand and unlike communism it also does not have a model for a new social order. I agree to all of that. But, if you say that feminine and masculine traits are not naturally ordained, I do not see what my opposition to you is 🙂

I am confused. I will read all that you wrote again in peace and try to get back. 🙂

Sarab

Sure, just another clarification in the meanwhile:

“Upturning patriarchy is something I do not understand and unlike communism it also does not have a model for a new social order”

As I said there is no recommendation from my side to patriarchy or matrilinear society. Point is this: in a less civilized and more barbaric society that values physical power, matrilinear groups become vulnerable and fade out – as history shows. On the contrary in a society that is inherently diverse, has a decent balance between physical power and cultural refinement, several endogamous ethnic groups can coexist – some matrilinear and some patriarchal. As it happened in India before invasions when brute power almost became the sole dominating factor. After all, we are never a monolithic society to stick to one principle. So again, the solution for restoring feminine principle is in restoration of emphasis on cultural refinement and learning to value softer elements of civilization.

pp_chn

/* Let an individual decide how s/he wants to play out her/his gender roles */ Society/others can’t afford the cost of letting individuals decide what role they want to play & when they want to play / opt out of it. A harsh truth which “individuals” cant come to terms with. Eg., Women doctors take it easy once kids come along. Losers: society which invested in creating those doctors in the first place. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/12/opinion/12sibert.html?pagewanted=all

This is applicable to ALL fields. Not just doctors.

/* There has been no attempt by feminists in India to draw from the rich cultural heritage. */ What will feminists learn from India’s heritage?

Sarab

But that’s precisely what the feminists argue against: the lady should not be “forced” to take to family, she should have the freedom to decide if the wants to pursue a careerist life. You know, your evil Yindoo male chauvinism forces woman to sacrifice her bright career and sit like a rabbit in the kitchen and keep bearing kids like a gynic machine. So either way it is you Yindoo male that is the source of evil 🙂

Subscribe to our mailing list

Like us on Facebook

Categories

Categories

Recent Comments

gk: Are you running some university where you gave yourself '100' level knowledge rating? If you have s…

gk: >>>>>So what? words get added,changed and removed as time goes on You really do not h…

Sekar Devaraj: You have to study more, your knowledge level is "0". Please study and comeback to discuss here.…